G.R. No. 143618-41 - Romualdez vs. Sandiganbayan

Case Summary (G.R. No. 143618-41)

Factual Background

Petitioner faced twenty-four informations filed as Criminal Cases Nos. 13406-13429 charging him with violation of Republic Act No. 3019, specifically failure to file annual statements of assets and liabilities covering 1962 to 1985. The PCGG initiated the original preliminary investigation and Commissioner Augusto E. Villarin conducted proceedings that preceded the filing of the informations. The Sandiganbayan had earlier issued arrest warrants and cash-bail conditions; petitioner was then in exile and returned only on April 27, 2000, at which time he surrendered and posted bail. Thereafter the Sandiganbayan directed a reinvestigation to be conducted by the Office of the Special Prosecutor.

Prior Supreme Court Ruling in G.R. No. 105248

In G.R. No. 105248 the Supreme Court declared on May 16, 1995 that the preliminary investigation conducted by the PCGG over the twenty-four offenses was invalid for lack of jurisdiction because the alleged offenses did not relate to ill-gotten wealth within the PCGG’s mandate. The Court, however, held that the invalidity of the preliminary investigation did not itself impair the validity of the informations nor affect the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction. The Court directed the Sandiganbayan to suspend proceedings and required the Office of the Ombudsman to conduct a proper preliminary investigation.

Reinvestigation and Sandiganbayan Proceedings Following the Remand

Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s directive, the Sandiganbayan on November 13, 1995 required petitioner to file counter-affidavits within fifteen days and directed the Office of the Special Prosecutor to reinvestigate. Special Prosecutor Evelyn T. Lucero scheduled clarificatory hearings in June 2000 and sought extensions to submit results of reinvestigation. Notices of hearing were served, at one point, to Atty. Jesus Borromeo, who later advised he did not represent petitioner in these particular cases. Petitioner, through counsel Atty. Otilia Dimayuga-Molo, filed a Motion to Quash on June 2, 2000 arguing that the PCGG Commissioner who filed the informations had no authority to do so. On June 8, 2000 the Presiding Justice, in open court and without granting the prosecution time to oppose, denied the Motion to Quash, terminated the reinvestigation then being conducted by Prosecutor Lucero, and set an arraignment date.

Petition, Reliefs Sought, and Grounds Advanced

On July 7, 2000 petitioner filed a petition seeking annulment of the Sandiganbayan’s assailed orders dated June 8, 2000 and sought a writ of preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order to enjoin the arraignment set for July 28, 2000. Petitioner presented three principal grounds: (I) that the Sandiganbayan acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion by denying the Motion to Quash because the PCGG Commissioner who filed the informations lacked authority; (II) that the Sandiganbayan failed to comply with the Supreme Court’s directive in G.R. No. 105248 to order the Ombudsman to conduct a proper preliminary investigation; and (III) that petitioner was denied due process through prejudgment and lack of impartiality by the Presiding Justice.

Respondents’ Contentions and Procedural Defenses

Respondents maintained that the issue of the invalidity of the preliminary investigation was already addressed in G.R. No. 105248 and that the invalidity did not affect the validity of the informations or the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction. They invoked authorities holding that absence of preliminary investigation is not a ground to quash an information and that, where appropriate, courts should suspend proceedings and remand the case for preliminary investigation. Respondents further argued that certiorari was not the proper remedy against denial of a motion to quash except in special circumstances, and contended that petitioner had waived his right to a proper preliminary investigation by failing to appear at scheduled hearings.

The Court’s Distinction Between Lack of Preliminary Investigation and Lack of Authority to File

The Court distinguished prior authorities where the proper prosecuting officer had filed informations without first conducting a preliminary investigation from the present case in which an unauthorized officer filed the informations. The Court noted that Rule 117, Section 3(d) expressly provides as ground for quashal that “the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so.” The Court emphasized that an information must be subscribed and filed by the prosecutor under Rules of Court, Rule 110, Sec. 4, and that in Sandiganbayan cases the prosecutor is the Ombudsman. The Court found that the flaw here — informations filed by the PCGG rather than the proper prosecuting officer — was not a mere remediable formal defect but a substantive infirmity that cannot be cured by subsequent preliminary investigation or amendment.

Due Process, Waiver, and the Termination of the Reinvestigation

The Court held that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion by abruptly terminating the reinvestigation being conducted by Prosecutor Lucero, thereby frustrating the Supreme Court’s directive to afford petitioner a proper preliminary investigation. The Court treated the right to a preliminary investigation as substantive rather than merely procedural. It found no valid waiver by petitioner of that right, observing that petitioner failed to attend the earlier clarificatory hearings because of defective notice: notices were served on counsel who did not represent petitioner in these specific cases. The premature termination of the reinvestigation prevented petitioner from availing himself of the remedial process ordered by the Court.

Legal Basis for Quashal and the Court’s Rationale

Relying on established precedents, including Cruz, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, the Court r

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 143618-41)

Parties

Benjamin Kokoy Romualdez was the petitioner who challenged orders of the Sandiganbayan and sought injunctive relief.
The Honorable Sandiganbayan (First Division) was the respondent court whose orders dated June 8, 2000 were assailed.
The People of the Philippines represented by Special Prosecution Officer II Evelyn Tagoba Lucero was the prosecution respondent in the reinvestigation and preliminary investigation.

Key Facts

The PCGG filed twenty-four informations against petitioner for alleged failure to file statements of assets and liabilities covering 1962 to 1985, docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 13406-13429.
In an earlier petition, G.R. No. 105248, this Court declared the preliminary investigation conducted by a PCGG commissioner invalid because the offenses did not relate to ill-gotten wealth and thus were beyond PCGG jurisdiction.
The Court in G.R. No. 105248 nonetheless held that the invalidity of the preliminary investigation did not impair the validity of the informations and directed the Sandiganbayan to suspend proceedings and require the Office of the Ombudsman to conduct a proper preliminary investigation.
Following that directive, the Sandiganbayan ordered a reinvestigation and directed the Office of the Special Prosecutor to act, but petitioner was abroad until April 27, 2000 and failed to file counter-affidavits.
Prosecutor Lucero scheduled clarificatory hearings in June 2000 and served notice on Atty. Jesus Borromeo, who informed her he did not represent petitioner in those cases.
On June 2, 2000 petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the informations on the ground that the PCGG commissioner who filed them lacked authority.
On June 8, 2000 the Presiding Justice of the Sandiganbayan denied the Motion to Quash in open court, terminated the reinvestigation, and set arraignment, all without allowing opposition by the prosecution.

Prior Decision

In Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 105248, this Court found the PCGG preliminary investigation invalid because the charges did not involve ill-gotten wealth and therefore were beyond PCGG jurisdiction.
The Court in Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan directed suspension of proceedings in the Sandiganbayan and remand for a proper preliminary investigation by the Ombudsman.

Procedural Posture

Petitioner filed the instant petition for certiorari, prohibition, a writ of preliminary injunction, and temporary restraining order to annul the Sandiganbayan orders dated June 8, 2000 and to enjoin his scheduled arraignment.
The Sandiganbayan was ordered to maintain the status quo ante while respondents were required to comment.

Issues Presented